David Cameron wants Google to "hold a hackathon for child safety."

Earlier this year, we reported on the United Kingdom’s plans to regulate online pornography, specifically at the ISP level. At present, the United Kingdom’s top four ISPs (BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin)—who collectively serve 88 percent of British Internet users—impose varying levels of opt-in porn filtering, but only for new customers.

Prime Minister David Cameron says that’s not enough. In a speech on Monday at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a nonprofit group in London, the UK leader said that he had a “clear message” for Google, Bing, and other major search engines. “You have a duty to act on this—and it is a moral duty,” he said. “I simply don’t accept the argument that some of these companies have used to say that these searches should be allowed because of freedom of speech.”

Cameron wants search engines to impose a blacklist of search terms that Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP), a division of British law enforcement, would provide. The prime minister also demanded an update from these companies by October 2013.

“If in October we don’t like the answer we’re given to this question, if the progress is slow or nonexistent, then I can tell you we are already looking at the legislative options we have to force action,” Cameron said.

“And there’s a further message I have for the search engines. If there are technical obstacles to acting on this, don’t just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them. You’re the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the earth from space, who have developed algorithms that make sense of vast quantities of information. You’re the people who take pride in doing what they say can’t be done. You hold hackathons for people to solve impossible Internet conundrums. Well—hold a hackathon for child safety. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You are not separate from our society, you are part of our society, and you must play a responsible role in it.”

Representatives from Google and Microsoft did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Cameron added that as soon as next month, 90 percent of public, commercial Wi-Fi networks across the UK would also include “family-friendly filters,” a plan that another children’s charity, the Mother’s Union, had previously told Ars that it would like to see put into place.

“And we are keen to introduce a 'Family Friendly Wi-Fi' symbol which retailers, hotels, and transport companies can use to show their customers that their public Wi-Fi is filtered,” Cameron added. “That is how we’re protecting children outside of the home.”

UPDATE 3:03pm CT: A Google spokesperson wrote to Ars with this statement, without addressing Cameron's specific points on the blacklist and the hackathon: “We have a zero tolerance attitude to child sexual abuse imagery. We use our own systems and work with child safety experts to find it, remove and report it. We recently donated $5 million to groups working to combat this problem and are committed to continuing the dialogue with the Government on these issues."

279 Reader Comments

I don't want my child exposed to some horrific gang bang where a women is essentially assaulted while grinning. I would love some sort of effective porn filter. I know that makes me a hater of free speech. I'm not a prude. I have nothing against sex. It's the violence plus sex combo that I find horribly offensive.

Imagine letting your kid wander around Barnes & Noble and him/her returning with some hard core porn for you to read to them. You'd be super-pissed at B&N for their not being family friendly. There's no safe place on the internet.

Why would I be upset that B&N has a classics section? You do realize that there is a ton of classic literature that makes the porn that bothers you look extremely tame, right?

It's ABSOLUTELY society's job to educate my child. Have you not heard of PUBLIC education? Parents should be bare the brunt of the responsibility, but society is definitely part of the equation. Ever hear of it "it takes a village?".

Generally, public education is more or less limited to technical issues, not so much basic morality.

Quote:

Currently, I'd argue that internet society, is making it more difficult than necessary to teach children about sex education. I can say, "Son, women don't like to be assaulted during sex" but unfortunately he already saw a dozen graphic ads that give him a different message. All he was trying to do was write a paper about the last presidential election. What did candidate Rick Santorum stand for? All of sudden he's knee deep in porn.

Would it be so damned wrong to opt into that content?

Actually, what you would explain to your son is that some people enjoy a submissive role in sex, and some people enjoy a dominant role. Explain to him that while role playing these kinds of things sexually is just fine and healthy, that it is only pretend, and that many of the performers in these films have been trained in how to not cause actual harm to their partners. Also, I think it's amusing that people get so up in arms over men dominating women, but femdom rarely gets a mention in these conversations.

I don't want my child exposed to some horrific gang bang where a women is essentially assaulted while grinning. I would love some sort of effective porn filter. I know that makes me a hater of free speech. I'm not a prude. I have nothing against sex. It's the violence plus sex combo that I find horribly offensive.

Imagine letting your kid wander around Barnes & Noble and him/her returning with some hard core porn for you to read to them. You'd be super-pissed at B&N for their not being family friendly. There's no safe place on the internet.

Why would I be upset that B&N has a classics section? You do realize that there is a ton of classic literature that makes the porn that bothers you look extremely tame, right?

Or, how about the poems and writings of D.H. Lawrence or, for that matter, Chaucer? Staples of literature, required reading in college level courses, and in some cases pretty damn vulgar. Even Shakespeare had some bawdy material, and he's required reading from middle school on.

I shudder to think what this guy would think of B&N's art section. Especially since they carry the work of guys like Robert Mapplethorpe (probably most well known for the self photo he took of himself with a bullwhip shoved up his rear).

Once again, I'll say - you're your own best filter. It shouldn't be up to the government, or some other entity to decide what you can or can not view. That decision should be yours, and yours alone.

If you switch on Google's filter then the scantily clad women disappear. Just because you can't find the safe search settings doesn't mean we have to be penalised.

That's not true. Turn on Safe Search right now. Google cowgirl. See what happens.

I did. I didn't get any pornographic images. If you did see some porn then perhaps make Google aware of it...?

When I Google'd web links with the term "cowgirls" there's several references to "Even Cowgirls get the Blues" by Tom Robbins. If you don't like porn links, I doubt you would enjoy that. It's a coming of age novel that includes homosexuality, drug use and political rebellion. Do you want your kids to start thinking for themselves...? Or perhaps just ban things you can't be bothered to tell your kids about...?

And FYI, when I was a kid I found "Even Cowgirls get the Blues" in my local lending library. Huge influence to my early years and better than any porn that was available.

A hackathon for child safety, huh? Absent some sort of device connected to your cellphone that gives you an electric shock every time your internet connection is used to access porn, I don't think anything else will get the point across to "it's for the children" advocates: it's not your ISP's job to raise your kids.

Interference is going to happen, either way. If you live on an island, of course, you can have it your way. I don't live on an island. I live in a society, and I like that society, and I will put up with some bothersome aspects, to help that society.

Again, nothing I propose, affects you in any way. Unless, due to some physical disabilty, you can't click on the "I want porn" checkbox, in which case, how do you use the internet at all?

The problem is that there is social pressure to not to click this check box even if you want to. When till before you were able to look pornographic material privately then now you are forced publicly acknowledge that you are doing it. This is wrong!

Second aspect is that because very likely most of the population actually do not choose this option because of the social pressure then it would be very easy to hide much more than pornographic material under the cover.

Family Filters should be enabled by default in all popular Web browsers as many parents are both unaware of the content their children may be exposed to in the privacy of their bedrooms and lacking in the rudimentary technological skills to render them safe.

Bing searches should be ‘Strict’ by default, with the parent able to loosen this to ‘Moderate’ without permission for anyone in their household. Further loosening to ‘Off’ for their own password protected user account should require an opt−in to an age verified Government held list.

‘The Accused’ could be legally streamed from NetFlix to anything set to ‘Moderate’ due to its certification metadata. Obviously, this won’t stop disturbed criminals accessing audiovisual records of criminal acts. but it will be a pragmatic step in the right direction to curb children being exposed to toxic material.

Family Filters should be enabled by default in all popular Web browsers as many parents are both unaware of the content their children may be exposed to in the privacy of their bedrooms and lacking in the rudimentary technological skills to render them safe.

So if you want to monitor the kids' usage so damn hard, why are you placing the computer in their bedroom?

‘The Accused’ could be legally streamed from NetFlix to anything set to ‘Moderate’ due to its certification metadata. Obviously, this won’t stop disturbed criminals accessing audiovisual records of criminal acts. but it will be a pragmatic step in the right direction to curb children being exposed to toxic material.

Family Filters should be enabled by default in all popular Web browsers as many parents are both unaware of the content their children may be exposed to in the privacy of their bedrooms and lacking in the rudimentary technological skills to render them safe.

Bing searches should be ‘Strict’ by default, with the parent able to loosen this to ‘Moderate’ without permission for anyone in their household. Further loosening to ‘Off’ for their own password protected user account should require an opt−in to an age verified Government held list.

‘The Accused’ could be legally streamed from NetFlix to anything set to ‘Moderate’ due to its certification metadata. Obviously, this won’t stop disturbed criminals accessing audiovisual records of criminal acts. but it will be a pragmatic step in the right direction to curb children being exposed to toxic material.

You do know that films like "The Accussed" are fiction, right...? The vast majority of children aren't interested in watching it either. For children it's a boring adult film.

Family Filters should be enabled by default in all popular Web browsers as many parents are both unaware of the content their children may be exposed to in the privacy of their bedrooms and lacking in the rudimentary technological skills to render them safe.

Why should that be the case? I am not a child. There are many people that are not children that want to access pornography, and are lacking in the rudimentary skills to circumvent that technology. Who the fuck are you to get in the way of them getting their rocks off because you are afraid that kids are going to see porn that will not harm them?

Quote:

Bing searches should be ‘Strict’ by default, with the parent able to loosen this to ‘Moderate’ without permission for anyone in their household. Further loosening to ‘Off’ for their own password protected user account should require an opt−in to an age verified Government held list.

Yes, what could possibly go wrong with having to be on a government list if you want to access anything the government doesn't want you to see? If you want that, leave the western world and go to a country where they do that.

Quote:

‘The Accused’ could be legally streamed from NetFlix to anything set to ‘Moderate’ due to its certification metadata. Obviously, this won’t stop disturbed criminals accessing audiovisual records of criminal acts. but it will be a pragmatic step in the right direction to curb children being exposed to toxic material.

What does 'toxic material' have to do with this? The most toxic material is the filth from you and Cameron, but even in such a case, I think debate is a much more appropriate approach than censorship.

Family Filters should be enabled by default in all popular Web browsers as many parents are both unaware of the content their children may be exposed to in the privacy of their bedrooms and lacking in the rudimentary technological skills to render them safe.

Why should that be the case? I am not a child. There are many people that are not children that want to access pornography, and are lacking in the rudimentary skills to circumvent that technology. Who the fuck are you to get in the way of them getting their rocks off because you are afraid that kids are going to see porn that will not harm them?

Quote:

Bing searches should be ‘Strict’ by default, with the parent able to loosen this to ‘Moderate’ without permission for anyone in their household. Further loosening to ‘Off’ for their own password protected user account should require an opt−in to an age verified Government held list.

Yes, what could possibly go wrong with having to be on a government list if you want to access anything the government doesn't want you to see? If you want that, leave the western world and go to a country where they do that.

Quote:

‘The Accused’ could be legally streamed from NetFlix to anything set to ‘Moderate’ due to its certification metadata. Obviously, this won’t stop disturbed criminals accessing audiovisual records of criminal acts. but it will be a pragmatic step in the right direction to curb children being exposed to toxic material.

What does 'toxic material' have to do with this? The most toxic material is the filth from you and Cameron, but even in such a case, I think debate is a much more appropriate approach than censorship.

Oh, and "The Accused" isn't even toxic material. If you look at the film in the context of the time it brought rape into the mainstream. Up until then rape was a "dirty" topic and automatically brought shame onto women who had been attacked. By highlighting the subject matter everyone could discuss the topic.

If we start censoring things just because we don't like them then we miss all of that. It's espcially important that teenagers and young adults have access to films like The Accused so that they are also aware of the issues surrounding a topic such as rape.

This is just getting more ridiculous; I don't mind the idea of certain "safe search" options on Google (we already have this for image searches after all), but forcing this unilaterally is an incredible dangerous precedent to set.

It also seems like the whole push for child protection is based on dubious technological "solutions" that seem all too similar to certain country-wide firewalls; these are not solutions to the problem as there will always be ways to bypass the system.

While I will happily advocate that parents should look into parental controls and other systems to help keep their internet connection "safe", it is never going to be enough on its own. Parents need to supervise and educate their children, as filters like these will only do more harm than good overall when it turns out that they've done nothing but give a false sense of security; parental controls are a tool to help you along, but they're not a replacement for good parenting.

Filtering the internet is not something that the government has any business doing; while I don't mind it in the most extreme of cases (clear terrorist or child abuse content for example) it is otherwise a bad thing, no matter the official reasons.

David Cameron's government has proven that it is completely incapable of implementing sound policy; everything they've done while in power has been a disaster, with more to follow as they seem to have their sights set on privatising profitable nationally owned businesses, plans to cut down on benefits have only resulted in rising costs to other forms of benefit and so-on.

I don't get why people are screaming about the first amendment. It's England the story is talking about, and last time I checked we aren't a state in the USA.

American commenters need to stop trying to push their "community values" onto another country. Here in the UK bodily functions are viewed with mirth rather than shock. The only people who would back this sort of legislation are Daily Mail reading, aspirational middle class wannabes.

So it is society's job - and not yours as a parent - to make sure that your kids are not despicable fucking people with no sense of empathy for others, to the point where they'd think assaulting someone during sex is okay?

You're starting to make a very convincing argument for eugenics, is that what you're actually shooting for here?

It's ABSOLUTELY society's job to educate my child. Have you not heard of PUBLIC education? Parents should be bare the brunt of the responsibility, but society is definitely part of the equation. Ever hear of it "it takes a village?".

Currently, I'd argue that internet society, is making it more difficult than necessary to teach children about sex education. I can say, "Son, women don't like to be assaulted during sex" but unfortunately he already saw a dozen graphic ads that give him a different message. All he was trying to do was write a paper about the last presidential election. What did candidate Rick Santorum stand for? All of sudden he's knee deep in porn.

Would it be so damned wrong to opt into that content?

Why does every anti-porn advocate always seem to bring it back to violent porn being the problem? I scour the net for new porn every day and instances of porn depicting actual violence against anyone (women, men or transgender) is extremely rare. You can browse porn hours on end for weeks and never find any depictions of nonconsensual interactions (which is called rape, and makes most porn producers squeamish).

Wanting to eliminate violent porn is one thing. Wanting to eliminate all porn because you somehow equate oral or anal sex to violence is completely different and shows a staggering lack of understanding of how human sexuality works.

Something else to consider: Will companies, universities (inc JANET) also have to implement these filters? I can see that going down really well when %ACADEMIC_RESEARCHING_XYZ% finds their access blocked, or that %PARENT_OF_STUDENT% discovers that their darling child has access to porn on the university connection (if not blocked). The Mail would have a field day.

This kind of nonsense is why constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is important.

Keyword based blocking is ineffective and inaccurate, and there's no way to fix either of those. In my almost 20 years of using the internet, I have never once "stumbled" onto porn using a search engine, it just doesn't happen. If people are actively searching for porn, then it's none of the government's business. If you are trying to prevent child abuse and the creation of child porn, then you go after the creators and distributors, not set up filters.

I agree with most of this, but back in '99 I remember having to look up information on a game title for the company I worked for, and Yahoo gave me nothing but porn links. I immediately searched for "gastrointestinal upset" and got nothing but porn links. That was the highlight of the office work week. Yahoo has improved greatly since then.

This kind of nonsense is why constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is important.

Keyword based blocking is ineffective and inaccurate, and there's no way to fix either of those. In my almost 20 years of using the internet, I have never once "stumbled" onto porn using a search engine, it just doesn't happen. If people are actively searching for porn, then it's none of the government's business. If you are trying to prevent child abuse and the creation of child porn, then you go after the creators and distributors, not set up filters.

I agree with most of this, but back in '99 I remember having to look up information on a game title for the company I worked for, and Yahoo gave me nothing but porn links. I immediately searched for "gastrointestinal upset" and got nothing but porn links. That was the highlight of the office work week. Yahoo has improved greatly since then.

In all fairness, that was back in the day when it was common tactic to overload your header meta tags with as much junk terms as possible for your porn page to appear on as many unrelated search results as possible, something Google quickly learned to defeat by looking for term relevance rather than mere appearance.

This is just getting more ridiculous; I don't mind the idea of certain "safe search" options on Google (we already have this for image searches after all), but forcing this unilaterally is an incredible dangerous precedent to set.

It also seems like the whole push for child protection is based on dubious technological "solutions" that seem all too similar to certain country-wide firewalls; these are not solutions to the problem as there will always be ways to bypass the system.

While I will happily advocate that parents should look into parental controls and other systems to help keep their internet connection "safe", it is never going to be enough on its own. Parents need to supervise and educate their children, as filters like these will only do more harm than good overall when it turns out that they've done nothing but give a false sense of security; parental controls are a tool to help you along, but they're not a replacement for good parenting.

Filtering the internet is not something that the government has any business doing; while I don't mind it in the most extreme of cases (clear terrorist or child abuse content for example) it is otherwise a bad thing, no matter the official reasons.

David Cameron's government has proven that it is completely incapable of implementing sound policy; everything they've done while in power has been a disaster, with more to follow as they seem to have their sights set on privatising profitable nationally owned businesses, plans to cut down on benefits have only resulted in rising costs to other forms of benefit and so-on.

I have no idea how people like Cameron get into power. It really is amazing. I would posit that the reduction in benefits and reduction in profit to the government as a result of selling profitable government services off is a FEATURE from Cameron's perspective, not a side effect.

Seeing naked people is sinful. If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born that way and if He had wanted us to watch sex, He would have given us a primal urge to do so.

Yeah it's not about naked people.

I don't want my child exposed to some horrific gang bang where a women is essentially assaulted while grinning. I would love some sort of effective porn filter. I know that makes me a hater of free speech. I'm not a prude. I have nothing against sex. It's the violence plus sex combo that I find horribly offensive.

Imagine letting your kid wander around Barnes & Noble and him/her returning with some hard core porn for you to read to them. You'd be super-pissed at B&N for their not being family friendly. There's no safe place on the internet.

Someone has not been in the art/photography section of B&N...

Any parent who lets their children wander around in any store unsupervised, should have their children taken away. Forget about the porn they might inadvertently stumble across, worry about the pervert who might grab them and run out the door.

Seriously?

You're part of the problem if you believe that. Nobody wants your damn kid. Nobody. I'm so sick of hearing all the paranoia about some stranger around every corner just waiting to grab your brat when you're not looking. That's extremely rare.

David Cameron's government has proven that it is completely incapable of implementing sound policy; everything they've done while in power has been a disaster, with more to follow...

No, give the man credit for his good work too: he recently legalized same-sex marriage over stiff resistance from inside his own party: "Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else—commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us. Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and we support each other. I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative."

I don't get why people are screaming about the first amendment. It's England the story is talking about, and last time I checked we aren't a state in the USA.

American commenters need to stop trying to push their "community values" onto another country. Here in the UK bodily functions are viewed with mirth rather than shock. The only people who would back this sort of legislation are Daily Mail reading, aspirational middle class wannabes.

There has also been some comparative discussion of conditions in USA. But beyond that, Justice Hugo Black's view of the First Amendment is not only correct, it is a model for the world. This is a fundamental value and it will ultimately prevail worldwide. As for the UK view of bodily functions, that should prevail over the "shock" view (worldwide). Also, are you bringing us the happy news that "this sort of legislation" will never pass?

"There is no "spewing filth in reverse". The Internet provides porn only when you look for it. "

You really need to specify what planet your on, when you post stuff like that.

It's a different internet on Mars, I guess, where parents don't have to PAY MONEY to keep the filth off the screen, in their own home. That the kids have to use, there is no choice in that!

So, if there is no choice in that, then I say, give no choice to the internet! Or, is the computer the superior, and the human the slave? This really is a fundamental issue, who will run the world, humans, or machines?

Yes, Skynet is taking over the world through the use of porn on the internet.

You might ask Mr. Cameron to employ the full power of state 'coercicion' (sic) upon the state school system so the state's 'desent' (sic) defenders can state their opinions without fear of ridicule. "

I am not interfering with your act at all. I merely want people, who want access to pornagraphy, to have to opt-in, rather than op-out. That's all. If I have to use force to do that, I am ok with that.

I don't understand your second point, I am across the pond, so I'm not familiar with that situation.

Willing to use force to get your way? Sounds like a terrorist threat to me...

You might ask Mr. Cameron to employ the full power of state 'coercicion' (sic) upon the state school system so the state's 'desent' (sic) defenders can state their opinions without fear of ridicule. "

I am not interfering with your act at all. I merely want people, who want access to pornagraphy, to have to opt-in, rather than op-out. That's all. If I have to use force to do that, I am ok with that.

I don't understand your second point, I am across the pond, so I'm not familiar with that situation.

What I read in your comment is "I'm not opposed to your accessing porn, I just want you to have to ask permission to access it rather than having to decline free access as you have right now."

I bet searching for porn online is really one of the most important threats british children are facing today./sarcasmSeriously, safesearch already does a decent job at keeping most adult stuff out of sight. Sooner or later, the kid will stop seeing sex as repulsive and get interested in it.Even if you block the search engines' results, they can just create an account on some forum, ask in 4chan for direct links or even ask on facebook.

Seeing naked people is sinful. If God had meant for us to be naked, we would have been born that way and if He had wanted us to watch sex, He would have given us a primal urge to do so.

Yeah it's not about naked people.

I don't want my child exposed to some horrific gang bang where a women is essentially assaulted while grinning. I would love some sort of effective porn filter. I know that makes me a hater of free speech. I'm not a prude. I have nothing against sex. It's the violence plus sex combo that I find horribly offensive.

Imagine letting your kid wander around Barnes & Noble and him/her returning with some hard core porn for you to read to them. You'd be super-pissed at B&N for their not being family friendly. There's no safe place on the internet.

Someone has not been in the art/photography section of B&N...

Any parent who lets their children wander around in any store unsupervised, should have their children taken away. Forget about the porn they might inadvertently stumble across, worry about the pervert who might grab them and run out the door.

Seriously?

You're part of the problem if you believe that. Nobody wants your damn kid. Nobody. I'm so sick of hearing all the paranoia about some stranger around every corner just waiting to grab your brat when you're not looking. That's extremely rare.

So are terrorist bombings. What's your point?

The point is probably that, just like terrorist bombings, child abduction is a scenario sensationalized by the media to a level of paranoia that causes otherwise rational people to expend large amounts of resources and anxiety in a manner disproportionate to the risk posed.

Child abduction is rare and is more likely to be done by a family member, relative or someone known to the child. Frequently as part of a custody battle.

You are more likely to drown in your bathtub than die from terrorist activity. I haven't seen any trillion dollar bathtub safety stimulus programs proposed.

Note: I'm not advocating that parents let their children wander around unsupervised. Just that there are better reasons than the stranger danger boogieman.

Interference is going to happen, either way. If you live on an island, of course, you can have it your way. I don't live on an island. I live in a society, and I like that society, and I will put up with some bothersome aspects, to help that society.

Again, nothing I propose, affects you in any way. Unless, due to some physical disabilty, you can't click on the "I want porn" checkbox, in which case, how do you use the internet at all?

seriously why dont you make your ISPs, make the filter for existing customers instead of just new ones.

Most people on this forum seem to be jumping on the same stupid band wagon. This isn't to protect the children from viewing the pornography, it's to protect them from the people who view the pornography.

I see nothing wrong with this, anyone who is searching for specific child abuse terms is not expressing their freedom of speech, they are expressing their desire to break the law, which is bad enough, and also endangering children, which is the pits.

Most people on this forum seem to be jumping on the same stupid band wagon. This isn't to protect the children from viewing the pornography, it's to protect them from the people who view the pornography.

I see nothing wrong with this, anyone who is searching for specific child abuse terms is not expressing their freedom of speech, they are expressing their desire to break the law, which is bad enough, and also endangering children, which is the pits.

Cameron's own words seem to suggest otherwise, as he explicitly states that there is a distinct issue of children having access to porn. It is a bit confusing because the two subjects he brought up have nothing to do with each other. However, if you read the speech, he states that he wants to make it where if you are not an identified adult, you will not be able to access pornography. New customers will have filters on by default, and existing customers will be contacted, identified, and forced to choose on the matter. The filter cannot be disabled without contacting the ISP. He also wishes to ban rape porn entirely, even if you are an adult.

Most people on this forum seem to be jumping on the same stupid band wagon. This isn't to protect the children from viewing the pornography, it's to protect them from the people who view the pornography.

I see nothing wrong with this, anyone who is searching for specific child abuse terms is not expressing their freedom of speech, they are expressing their desire to break the law, which is bad enough, and also endangering children, which is the pits.

Even if that was the case - which it isn't (see HKPhooey's comment), how exactly would having a filter such as the one he describes - which people can opt out of - protect the children? You think people who abuse children will magically stop because you cut in to their profits a bit? Even that would be assuming the filter would cost them anything at all, which doesn't seem likely as the kind of things you'd do to hide your tracks in the first place would almost certainly get you around the filter. I'm fairly confident child abuse websites are not so lucrative they wouldn't just do something that would give them less trouble with the law if they were only in it for the profits (I'm sure normal porn must earn a fair bit more from sheer volume unless people pay a FORTUNE for this stuff).

seriously why dont you make your ISPs, make the filter for existing customers instead of just new ones.

Most people on this forum seem to be jumping on the same stupid band wagon. This isn't to protect the children from viewing the pornography, it's to protect them from the people who view the pornography.

I see nothing wrong with this, anyone who is searching for specific child abuse terms is not expressing their freedom of speech, they are expressing their desire to break the law, which is bad enough, and also endangering children, which is the pits.

Really people googling/binging specific child abuse terms are expressing their desire to break the law? Crapola. My wife is going to go to prison. See, she's a social worker and has to occasionally study for her licensing, or stay on top of the latest trends in the articles and research.

What a bunch of people are doing, as far as I can tell, is jump on the stupid band wagon that pornography is somehow bad. And it might be - for you. Don't like it? Don't use it.

seriously why dont you make your ISPs, make the filter for existing customers instead of just new ones.

Most people on this forum seem to be jumping on the same stupid band wagon. This isn't to protect the children from viewing the pornography, it's to protect them from the people who view the pornography.

I see nothing wrong with this, anyone who is searching for specific child abuse terms is not expressing their freedom of speech, they are expressing their desire to break the law, which is bad enough, and also endangering children, which is the pits.

maybe i should have added a smiley face or sarcasm tags after those periods.

The idea that looking up terms make you a criminal is idiotic. So if i look up concentration camps that means im going to try to start one? If i look up chernobyl that means im going to try to have it happen again?

what if someone is experiencing being abused, and they want to find help by typing in those terms?

seriously why dont you make your ISPs, make the filter for existing customers instead of just new ones.

Most people on this forum seem to be jumping on the same stupid band wagon. This isn't to protect the children from viewing the pornography, it's to protect them from the people who view the pornography.

I see nothing wrong with this, anyone who is searching for specific child abuse terms is not expressing their freedom of speech, they are expressing their desire to break the law, which is bad enough, and also endangering children, which is the pits.

maybe i should have added a smiley face or sarcasm tags after those periods.

The idea that looking up terms make you a criminal is idiotic. So if i look up concentration camps that means im going to try to start one? If i look up chernobyl that means im going to try to have it happen again?

what if someone is experiencing being abused, and they want to find help by typing in those terms?

That was the exact situation that Pete Townshend claimed he was in with Operation Ore.

Maybe I've been reading it wrong, but what I got from other sources is that the search terms were not going to be defined by the government, but by an independent NGO/charity body that already has the stats to see what paedos are looking at/for.

And people who's argument seems to be "It's not going to work, so we shouldn't even try" are the members of society who make/let society fall down the hill or tumble into the gutter.

There is nothing at all wrong with porn, as long as all participants are willing participants.

Z Girls understands that no algorithm is perfect, and that images of child pornography are a much more grave offense than our complaint, but we strongly believe that Google is NOT doing enough to filter offensive search results. Z Girls is an organization that teaches girls positive body-image, yet when people search "z girls," Google produces an image of a topless woman and a soft porn video. A search for "topless women" doesn't even produce an image of a topless woman, yet a search for a female-empowerment organization produces an image of a topless woman? Not classy Google. More stringent filters are still highly necessary.